I understand the following: Property rights - ownership of assets such as land and anything on it. Usage rights - right to make use of but not own. Traspass rights - may step onto designated property. Hunting rights - may partake of the animals of designated area. Timber rights - may cut and sell timber from specified area. Mineral rights - right to access and extraction of minerals from specified area. My first argument is that because the natives have rights to hunt and probably to timber on a specific region that does not imply that they have, or should have, full property rights to same region. Second argument is that the area that they may have rights to does not, or should not, extend to where ever. I point out that it is unreasonable and ridiculous for any such right to extend to a circumference of 50, 70 or even 100 kilometers around a native settlement. When granting full property rights there should have been made a difference between full property and hunting, timber or any other activity on the region or surronding it. Many if not all treaties of the past made no such distinction and caused the current problems that we have regarding what is owned and what is not. Similarly to what is owned, the extent of the regions to be owned or controlled is often taken by the natives to be to the maximum that they walked on or saw. Not much different from early explorers that claimed for their king all the land that they saw irrespective of the natives that already lived on said lands. Benefits gained by natives from white man is often forgotten while restitution to them for land rights obtained is quickly destroyed or withheld by the 'whites'. A two sided sword. Both have been, and are, claiming under false pretenses, in my limited opinion. Herb; for about 3 & 1/2 seconds, as I read, I actually thought you were serious and partly correct based on past Canadian practice. Oh well, live well and prosper, Ed.